All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Now authors have addressed all observations made by one of the reviewers and the manuscript should be accepted for publication.
Congratulations for the good job !!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michael Wink, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Now we have the second revision of a key reviewer and I am happy to let you know that the manuscript is acceptable for publication. I also agree with the evaluation and congratulate the authors for a good job. We only need you to attend to a few points that you should include as described in the attached file revised document.
See my comments on the attached file
See my comments on the attached file
See my comments on the attached file
See my comments on the attached file
Now we have got the report of two reviewers. Please, pay attention to all their comments and prepare a point-by-point to each issue in a response letter in order to continue with this editorial process.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
I have not reviewed the complete manuscript due to very poor English. At several instances I was unable to understand whole sentence or even whole paragraphs (see result section). Please see my comments in the attached file
Although, the experimental design is valid and it need many additional information that should be added in the manuscript to make it clear and understandable for the readers. Please see my comments in the attached file
Please see my comments in the attached file
Please see my comments in the attached file
Throughout the manuscript there are some inconsistencies with respect to the figures' calls in the text. Please review them.
No comment
No comment.
The manuscript is very detailed, however, it is necessary to make some adjustments that were verified throughout the text to improve comprehension.
Line 111-113: In the methodology mentions that the CL'30 and CL'50 were used, where did these values come from? A previous experiment was carried out? Or are they data from the literature? Please rewrite to clarify this issue.
What type of vegetable oil and why was it used? Justify to improve understanding.
Line 149-151: The information is not clear or is not consistent with the result shown in figure 2B, where there was no significant difference between the CL30 and CL50 for both SYP-9625 and EnSpray 99.
Line 152-153: This information does not match as shown in the figure. In the caption of the figure lowercase letters = difference between CL 30 and 50. In figure 2C The CL's of EnSpray 99 do not differ. Please review! And change Fig. 1C to Fig. 2C (line 153).
Line 155: “Fig. 1D ”does not match what is written.
Line 346: The conclusion of the manuscript item 2 mentions that the preferred leaf surface was adaxial. Probably the largest amount of mites recovered on the right adaxial surface is related to the release point, this may have tended the number of recovered on the adaxial surface.You could justify in your methodology why there was only this point of release. For the ideal would be to either release in alternate points or an intermediate point between the two areas: right and left.
Figure 2 legend: I suggest you insert what blue and white means in the captions of the figures.
Figure 3 – 9 legend: Please add in the caption what *** and “ns” mean.
Congratulations on the work!
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.